Cases rising or dropping by you?

[Heigh-Ho]

we could always,and continue to, ***travel around and about our country and to other countries*** at will.

Well we couldn't travel to just any country and we can't logistically, realistically, financially, etc stop inter-state travel within the U.S. Plan or not I don't know why people act like we could just up and halt all types of travel between states here. To me it's not even worth discussing that part because it just wouldn't make any sense here other than to highlight that inter-state travel is just part of our hump we have in our path with COVID.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

sort of interesting to go back and start reading this thread from the beginning. Pretty obvious from the numbers in every single area, that it didn't matter who closed or who stayed open, nothing worked like people thought it would. Every state seems to be going up no matter what measures were taken. In my mind, this is why people are hesitant to back another lock down or shut down or whatever you want to call it. What is the answer? Nobody knows. The science changes almost daily. And even the scientists disagree. and the scientists you disagree with are quacks, and the ones you agree with, are following true science. The cases in Us, and Europe are all exploding. Yet people will blame the deaths here on a person, but what about all the deaths worldwide? who are we blaming for those? In my mind, we can argue all day about what is the correct way to combat this, but their is only one country, one government, that is responsible for every single death worldwide. Lets get going on the vaccine. I hope we can all agree on that. And I will be first in line if needed.

Sorry, we swim in the same pool, and nearly half the people were peeing in the pool which ruined the possibility of having a pee free pool for everyone.

 

[NFLDERS]

Agree with @disneypharm here..... this is not the case at all. Those countries that had a serious lockdown of the ENTIRE country in their jurisdiction saw success in beating this back,and that includes actual enforcement (best they could) of the rules for safety...this meant everyone living in those places had to adhere or be in trouble with the law,for the safety of others.
The US,and other paces had no such policy in place. A state by state desperation of trying to make rules for safety completely failed our country as a whole, b/c we could always,and continue to, ***travel around and about our country and to other countries*** at will.This meant that no matter how strict NY state was, anyone from anywhere could break that lockdown,and bring the virus with them,to the tune of millions of people doing just that. SO no, we did NOT clearly have a plan in place at all to try and stop this thing,as a whole. Those countries that did have a plan from the start, fared MUCH better than we are currently faring. No one (sadly,horribly) is exempt from this pandemic anywhere, but those countriesthat REALLY tried on a national level,have clearly mitigated some of the awful effects. It's clear in the numbers....(try the John Hopkins daily update for global numbers and it's clear.)

In an area of Toronto our numbers for Ontario are the largest. The mayor cites all the reasons posted here. My thinking is of multi family dwellings, I'm hoping the covid planners that be decide to restrict those homes to lockdowns with one family member picking up essentials. Maybe, rotate that one person outing within the families. Otherwise, they may eventually be required to lock down the area as a whole.

 

[tvguy]

Well we couldn't travel to just any country and we can't logistically, realistically, financially, etc stop inter-state travel within the U.S. Plan or not I don't know why people act like we could just up and halt all types of travel between states here. To me it's not even worth discussing that part because it just wouldn't make any sense here other than to highlight that inter-state travel is just part of our hump we have in our path with COVID.

I disagree. Too many haven't taken this seriously and it is very much worth discussing because it might actually work.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I disagree. Too many haven't taken this seriously and it is very much worth discussing because it might actually work.

The discussion of halting inter-state travel always devolves into "well you could just do this" but we know that isn't possible. You cannot stop people from working between states, you don't have the manpower to patrol the roads, you don't have the money either to do so, you don't have the manpower nor legislation to put consequences to it and it's questionable if there's even authority to halt inter-state travel, you don't have the ability to take one person's situation (like being close to a border where they go to get their shopping done) and compare it to another persons, you don't have the ability to say this is okay to get this item but not ok to that item and so many more things. In a country our size, with the population we have, with the road system we have, it never would make sense. People usually like to think of it like there's just everyone going on vacations when it comes to inter-state travel and that's why that topic comes up.

It's focusing on something that just wouldn't be able to happen so instead of focusing on that let's focus on the things we can control. We know that inter-state travel presents a hurdle, but that also goes without saying. I think discussing it as a hurdle is fine, it's the discussing it just like how you said it "because it might actually work" that is the problem.

 

[NFLDERS]

The discussion of halting inter-state travel always devolves into "well you could just do this" but we know that isn't possible. You cannot stop people from working between states, you don't have the manpower to patrol the roads, you don't have the money either to do so, you don't have the manpower nor legislation to put consequences to it and it's questionable if there's even authority to halt inter-state travel, you don't have the ability to take one person's situation (like being close to a border where they go to get their shopping done) and compare it to another persons, you don't have the ability to say this is okay to get this item but not ok to that item and so many more things. In a country our size, with the population we have, with the road system we have, it never would make sense. People usually like to think of it like there's just everyone going on vacations when it comes to inter-state travel and that's why that topic comes up.

It's focusing on something that just wouldn't be able to happen so instead of focusing on that let's focus on the things we can control. We know that inter-state travel presents a hurdle, but that also goes without saying. I think discussing it as a hurdle is fine, it's the discussing it just like how you said it "because it might actually work" that is the problem.

How about 'Essential Air travel.' And, more online 'Order of business.' Considering all the technological tools available wouldn't it make a great difference?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I disagree. Too many haven't taken this seriously and it is very much worth discussing because it might actually work.

I agree with the other poster at least on a larger point (maybe not all of their points though) but I agree with you on the too many people haven't taken the pandemic seriously. I don't think stopping travel between states is the answer IMO.

I live in a metro between two states. Maybe if people don't live close to another state it makes it easier for them to consider this as a possibility (just a guess though maybe people who live on borders differ in the opinion from me too) but living here where I do it simply isn't. It's not that I don't see the reasons for it I just don't see it as a viable option; there's way too many reasons on a day to day life that one crosses the borders here. My mom lives 6 miles from the border of the states, my aunt lives on the border of the state (as in literally off of state line road), I used to live 4 miles from the border, etc I think in the end you'd have too many exceptions, too much effort thrown at this. I think the quarantine lists the states have isn't as effective as it sounds in theory (though I think it's better than nothing) but I think it's the middle ground here even though the vast majority of the state don't have the ability to enforce it. I know my state doesn't. Then again I'd rather my state use their resources to get PPE and testing kits. We are very low on the testing scale for the state as a whole due to testing supplies. In my direct area testing capabilities is actually okay really (they saw a bump in testing requests before Thanksgiving a bad and good thing) but the state as a whole is pitiful. I want my state to use effort there not stopping vehicles on 435 highway or I-70 (which is a large trucking route) or I-35 for that matter.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

How about 'Essential Air travel.' And, more online 'Order of business.' Considering all the technological tools available wouldn't it make a great difference?

Air travel I will always treat differently. There are less reasons to fly by plane between states than there would be for vehicle. Even then air travel has its own man power issues and logistics. But I do not believe that vehicle travel can be realistically addressed. I know people think vacations it just isn't the only reason not even by a long shot. Look at the tri-state area, they have exceptions made for each other on quarantine lists even though they have at one point in time (maybe even now) should be on their quarantine lists due to the metrics set up. It's nice they have their own bubble but even NY is adjusting their quarantine to being testing oriented rather than quarantine oriented plus it never applied to passing through (or less than 24 hours in the state) and they've always been more focused on air travel than vehicle travel. But applying that to all states (exception AK and HI who have geographical boundaries already).........

I think a lot of businesses have shifted to do online meetings when they can though.

 

[NFLDERS]

Air travel I will always treat differently. There are less reasons to fly by plane between states than there would be for vehicle. Even then air travel has its own man power issues and logistics. But I do not believe that vehicle travel can be realistically addressed. I know people think vacations it just isn't the only reason not even by a long shot. Look at the tri-state area, they have exceptions made for each other on quarantine lists even though they have at one point in time (maybe even now) should be on their quarantine lists due to the metrics set up. It's nice they have their own bubble but even NY is adjusting their quarantine to being testing oriented rather than quarantine oriented plus it never applied to passing through (or less than 24 hours in the state) and they've always been more focused on air travel than vehicle travel. But applying that to all states (exception AK and HI who have geographical boundaries already).........

I think a lot of businesses have shifted to do online meetings when they can though.

I used the word more, because maybe just maybe that could make a greater difference now.

 

[tvguy]

The discussion of halting inter-state travel always devolves into "well you could just do this" but we know that isn't possible. You cannot stop people from working between states, you don't have the manpower to patrol the roads, you don't have the money either to do so, you don't have the manpower nor legislation to put consequences to it and it's questionable if there's even authority to halt inter-state travel, you don't have the ability to take one person's situation (like being close to a border where they go to get their shopping done) and compare it to another persons, you don't have the ability to say this is okay to get this item but not ok to that item and so many more things. In a country our size, with the population we have, with the road system we have, it never would make sense. People usually like to think of it like there's just everyone going on vacations when it comes to inter-state travel and that's why that topic comes up.

It's focusing on something that just wouldn't be able to happen so instead of focusing on that let's focus on the things we can control. We know that inter-state travel presents a hurdle, but that also goes without saying. I think discussing it as a hurdle is fine, it's the discussing it just like how you said it "because it might actually work" that is the problem.

I think we need to try because so far eveything else has failed. But you bring up a good point. We aren't trying a lot of things because people say they won't work.....when they at the very least might help

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The part of the constitution that has been interpreted to allow travel between the states without needing identity papers suck as a passport is the privileges and immunities clause.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." What this means is that states have to give the same privileges and immunities that it gives its own citizens to citizens of other states as well. It doesn't mean you get to drive in Florida without a license. It means you can temporarily drive in the state with a license from another state nor is having Georgia plates in and of itself a legit reason to pull someone over. But it does mean you must obey Florida's laws while you're there.

Restricting movement into and out of areas affected by an epidemic has been adjudicated and declared constitutional as long as it is not done piecemeal. For example, you couldn't ban residents from other states but let your own residents freely cross into or from affected territory. Nor can you ban travel into or out of a state not affected.

As for manpower, states do indeed have or could easily muster the manpower to stop traffic on major routes into the state. The state of California already does this with agricultural inspection stations (which also have passed constitutional muster)

 

[Heigh-Ho]

The part of the constitution that has been interpreted to allow travel between the states without needing identity papers suck as a passport is the privileges and immunities clause.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." What this means is that states have to give the same privileges and immunities that it gives its own citizens to citizens of other states as well. It doesn't mean you get to drive in Florida without a license. It means you can temporarily drive in the state with a license from another state nor is having Georgia plates in and of itself a legit reason to pull someone over. But it does mean you must obey Florida's laws while you're there.

Restricting movement into and out of areas affected by an epidemic has been adjudicated and declared constitutional as long as it is not done piecemeal. For example, you couldn't ban residents from other states but let your own residents freely cross into or from affected territory. Nor can you ban travel into or out of a state not affected.

As for manpower, states do indeed have or could easily muster the manpower to stop traffic on major routes into the state. The state of California already does this with agricultural inspection stations (which also have passed constitutional muster)

Stop traffic and stop every car is way different and that's what you would have to do. We're not talking about requiring trucks to stop when the weigh station is open. We're talking about stopping each and every car on every single road. Because to do anything less would be ineffective, that would be like a collider only getting some cars while expending great effort just to do that. What state has the manpower to do this? Is our Federal government going to give us the millions of people needed for this effort?

When I said manpower I was meaning the amount of people needed to actually enforce it and what duties would anyone who is taking this on giving up in order to do this.

I appreciate the knowledge on your first part of your comment.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I think we need to try because so far eveything else has failed. But you bring up a good point. We aren't trying a lot of things because people say they won't work.....when they at the very least might help

There's probably two different people you're talking about. I know what you mean when you say because people say they won't work but it's out of just guessing. But I believe that would be a very small percentage of people. I think the majority of people are just looking at all the things that would have to go into such an event that it just because not realistic. It's not that nothing will work it's that there really are some things that just aren't well able to truly happen at least for us.

You know how everyone said way back when if we all just stood still for 2 weeks or whatever the time period was coronavirus would just go away? Well how do you propose we do that? You don't, because it wouldn't even be able to be accomplished.

Like I said I think people tend to only think about vacations when it comes to halting inter-state travel but vacations are only a reason and at what cost would it be to only catch those going for vacations rather than the almost endless other reasons people have to go between states. The other person did have a point on business travel and encouraging even more than we have been on trying to reduce that when it can be encouragement is probably all it can be but for clarity sake I am more talking about vehicle traffic because as I said traveling by plane to another state to get groceries is well not what is realistic for someone to do.

 

[Christine]

You know how everyone said way back when if we all just stood still for 2 weeks or whatever the time period was coronavirus would just go away? Well how do you propose we do that? You don't, because it wouldn't even be able to be accomplished.

Personally, I never heard the above statement made. What I recall hearing from a few physicians here and there (which started with the second spike back in June) was that if everyone went back to a Phase 1 approach for about 3.5 weeks, we could get the out-of-control spiking back down to reasonable numbers. The next part of the approach after that would be to then institute rigorous contact tracing along with rapid testing once the numbers went lower. Using those two tools, along with low community infections rates, would allow for a better "opening" and being able to tamp down outbreaks in extremely localized areas (specific neighborhoods or workplaces that were showing spikes).

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Personally, I never heard the above statement made. What I recall hearing from a few physicians here and there (which started with the second spike back in June) was that if everyone went back to a Phase 1 approach for about 3.5 weeks, we could get the out-of-control spiking back down to reasonable numbers. The next part of the approach after that would be to then institute rigorous contact tracing along with rapid testing once the numbers went lower. Using those two tools, along with low community infections rates, would allow for a better "opening" and being able to tamp down outbreaks in extremely localized areas (specific neighborhoods or workplaces that were showing spikes).

It was really early on well before reopening was even heard of so it wouldn't have been going back to Phase 1 (think Feb/March timeframe). It's probably been largely forgotten (for good reason too because it just wouldn't have worked). I don't remember if it was 2 weeks, 6 hours, etc but it was a time frame that if everyone just stood still because the idea was without movement the virus couldn't just jump from people to people. Good in theory really because that's what causes the issues but in practicality impossible.

 

[tvguy]

There's probably two different people you're talking about. I know what you mean when you say because people say they won't work but it's out of just guessing. But I believe that would be a very small percentage of people. I think the majority of people are just looking at all the things that would have to go into such an event that it just because not realistic. It's not that nothing will work it's that there really are some things that just aren't well able to truly happen at least for us.

You know how everyone said way back when if we all just stood still for 2 weeks or whatever the time period was coronavirus would just go away? Well how do you propose we do that? You don't, because it wouldn't even be able to be accomplished.

Like I said I think people tend to only think about vacations when it comes to halting inter-state travel but vacations are only a reason and at what cost would it be to only catch those going for vacations rather than the almost endless other reasons people have to go between states. The other person did have a point on business travel and encouraging even more than we have been on trying to reduce that when it can be encouragement is probably all it can be but for clarity sake I am more talking about vehicle traffic because as I said traveling by plane to another state to get groceries is well not what is realistic for someone to do.

I think we if we had shutdown for 6 weeks early on we would be in a better situation. Everyone still had 39 weeks of unemployment benefits avaiable then, and with the stimulus checks and the dozens of other now expired federal pandemic programs, people would have survived financially. But we didn't, we did the minimum

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I think we if we had shutdown for 6 weeks early on we would be in a better situation. Everyone still had 39 weeks of unemployment benefits avaiable then, and with the stimulus checks and the dozens of other now expired federal pandemic programs, people would have survived financially. But we didn't, we did the minimum

I've been very much against everyone shutting down at the same time. I do think there's a point to be made for movement but that movement in concentrated areas not the entire country.

The CARES Act was passed in late March and people are still waiting on unemployment aid. The additional $600 was spotty for a good amount of people I knew getting it for a few weeks then it up and going away then coming back and so on. A lot of places were closed in late March-April into May. The entire country? No but a lot of stay at home orders, millions out of work and millions unable to get the $ they needed then. People wouldn't have survived financially. Some would of course but you cannot say people in general. They didn't under stay at home orders, they didn't with government assistance. Landlords needed money, renters couldn't pay, businesses closed down but people still having to pay rent on those placed and the building owners still had their own finances, and so much more. Unemployment for many wasn't just a cure all and it never should be. In the past we've looked harshly as a society on people who survive and live off of government assistance but now we're telling people you should have been fine financially if all you did was live off of government assistance for a time period.

I don't think we did the minimum but I do think some places were too soft and some places too strict. We seemed to want all or nothing in some places agree there.

 

[tvguy]

I've been very much against everyone shutting down at the same time. I do think there's a point to be made for movement but that movement in concentrated areas not the entire country.

The CARES Act was passed in late March and people are still waiting on unemployment aid. The additional $600 was spotty for a good amount of people I knew getting it for a few weeks then it up and going away then coming back and so on. A lot of places were closed in late March-April into May. The entire country? No but a lot of stay at home orders, millions out of work and millions unable to get the $ they needed then. People wouldn't have survived financially. Some would of course but you cannot say people in general. They didn't under stay at home orders, they didn't with government assistance. Landlords needed money, renters couldn't pay, businesses closed down but people still having to pay rent on those placed and the building owners still had their own finances, and so much more. Unemployment for many wasn't just a cure all and it never should be. In the past we've looked harshly as a society on people who survive and live off of government assistance but now we're telling people you should have been fine financially if all you did was live off of government assistance for a time period.

I don't think we did the minimum but I do think some places were too soft and some places too strict. We seemed to want all or nothing in some places agree there.

Too late, any chance of doing what I am talking about passed months ago.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Too late, any chance of doing what I am talking about passed months ago.

Too late for what? What are you talking about? You were the one talking about if we had shut down, etc. I was talking about then it wouldn't have worked to simply shut down for 6 weeks (and places were shut down for that time period not everywhere but a good amount) even with the CARES Act because people wouldn't have been able to survive financially (some would but not in general) and people didn't survive financially even with the help. We both were talking about the past so what are you meaning when you say too late?

 

[tvguy]

Too late for what? What are you talking about? You were the one talking about if we had shut down, etc. I was talking about then it wouldn't have worked to simply shut down for 6 weeks (and places were shut down for that time period not everywhere but a good amount) even with the CARES Act because people wouldn't have been able to survive financially (some would but not in general) and people didn't survive financially even with the help. We both were talking about the past so what are you meaning when you say too late?

Like I said we had to do it early on, and no very few (at least here) shutdown for more than a few weeks. I don't know why people wouldn't survive. I can tell you first hand than my unemployment payments for my furlough were more than I would have made working, and I am not a minimum wage earner. Throw in the $1200 stimulus check, my income will be up for the year because of the pandemic assistance. Throw in all the other programs, I think people would have been fine. But those programs have expired. That is why the time has passed. The assistance programs are been used up. 39 weeks of unemployment benefits would have easily covered 6 weeks of unemployment. That is why it is too late, most of the assistance programs have ended. At least here in California you still can't be evicted from a rental propertyv still if the reason for non-payment is related to the pandemic